HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/28/1997Planning Commission Minutes - 10/28/97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
CITY OF PETAL UMA
PLANNWG COMBIISSION AHINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY HALL, PETALUMA, CA
October 28, 1997
7:00 PM
Commissioners Present: Bennett, Broad, Feibusch *, Healy, Maguire, Thompson, Vieler
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff. Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
James McCann, Principal Planner
Vincent Smith, Senior Planner
* Chairperson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None
COM1vIISSIONER'S REPORT: None
CORRESPONDENCE: Numerous letters received in opposition of Hillside Village.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Not read; does not apply to tonight's agenda item.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING
L HILLSIDE VILLAGE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT;
2323 Western Avenue (AP #'s 020 - 030 - 037/038).
Consideration and discussion of the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) for Hillside Village.
Senior Planner Smith presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/28/97
1 David Early. Consultant: prepared Draft EIR; gave overview of document; tonight's
2 meeting is to determine what deficiencies may be contained in the DEIR; 42
3 impacts/mitigations; the "should" mitigations will be changed to "shall" when and if this
4 project moves forward and the EIR is certified; discussed alternatives in relationship to
5 environmental issues; LAFCO will decide annexation boundaries; discussed cumulative
6 impacts analysis.
7 Pamela Tuft: clarified that there is no implied approval of this project if this DEIR is
8 finalized and certified.
9 Roger Hodges Calthorpe Associates: Upon request from the Chair for a project
10 description/presentation, he stated he will be recording comments regarding adequacy of
11 the DEIR
12 Pam Granger submitted letter; concerns included wrong location for a project of this
13 type; does not need "stand -alone village "; re: noise section of EIR, has concerns with
14 noise/building during times students are being driven to school (Const. Act 7 am 5 pm);
15 poor visibility with narrow road; new homeowners will have over 500 autos after 2 -1/2
16 year buildout; EIR does not fully address traffic issues; sidewalks on Western Avenue -
17 where would they be located? impacts on school facilities - inadequate suggestions;
18 Wilmar School District impacted; impact fees need to be adequate (Wilson Elementary
19 School); how will 40% more children be accommodated? Valley Vista, McNear, Wilson
20 schools are most impacted schools; do not approve; does not serve public interest.
21 , David Glass thanked Planning Commission and neighbors for job; parcel protected by
22 Williamson Act, which is still valid and cannot be ignored - no letter of protest has been
23 filed; Williamson Act used since 1991 to avoid property taxes - misuse of Williamson Act
24 during recession periods; if property owner allowed to cancel contract, burden of proof
25 for null and void is on the City; Williamson Act has protected property owners from
26 paying higher property taxes; property owner should not be able to walk away from this
27 contract; DEIR conclusion that project is consistent with General Plan is incorrect;
28 buildout for Petaluma is 67,000; as written in General Plan (1987 , 1995); let's not throw it
29 out now, small town atmosphere being eroded; apply logic of proposed 400% increase in
30 density throughout. City, then you will end up with 118,000 in population; GP, page 2 -
31 land use designation and density (max. number of units/acre); General Plan took a lot of
32 meetings, don't throw it out; Goals, page 26 - small town character - schools- commercial
33 on site conflicts with downtown economics; vacancies downtown, downtown is suffering
34 - commercial project away from downtown; commercial land speculation will occur in
35 county as a result of project; no need for these houses and market; GP, page 25: Growth
36 Management; GP, page 30: gradual and deliberate lessening of housing density; GP, page
37 30: city- centered development; sewer system/school districts cannot keep up with
38 development; Urban Limit Line will not be gradual or consistent; urban sprawl is
39 encouraged by this project; regarding parks, no mechanism for funding parkland; site
40 prone to landslides (Victoria has common areas which have landslides); developer needs
41 to pay park impact fees; page 196 of EIR: look at topography and quality of land being
42 offered - prone to slope instability.
43 Mydta Henry 210 Chapman Lane - asked for all who are against project to stand up
44 (nearly all in audience stood up); cultural resources - Johnson homestead; likelihood of
45 architectural finds needs to be studied before DEIR can be certified - arrowheads and
w
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/28/97
1 mortars found and human remains could exist; full-time archeologist should be on project
2 site at all times during construction, paid for by developer but work under the City; slope
3 stability, erosion, sedimentation, landslides/mudslides are a concern; lives on Marin Creek
4 which cannot take on any more water - lost property and Valley Oak due to erosion;
5 grading will further disrupt land - soil removal not a mitigation; soil not good for
6 development; will increase annual contaminant load to creek, river and SF Bay by
7 cumulative impact; will affect surface and ground water, fish, animal life, and the
s mitigations are not adequate; this project would increase constraints to Marin Creek and
9 other: waterways; commercial strip will bring in additional people/runoff - impacts not
10 discussed; Western Ave. /Chapman Lane flooding will impact property owners all along
11 Petaluma River -not discussed; high tides and additional runoff downstream not addressed;
12 culvert cleaning not adequate; Marin Creek, Payran and Denman flat impacts will be felt;
13 EIR is flawed and misleading and does not identify all impacts or mitigations; do not
14 approve EIR; this is not Southern California - demand a community and city responsive to
15 our environment.
16 Marne Cog an : Points in EIR missing, wrong and misleading; has concerns regarding
17 sewage treatment capacity - sewer at "D" St. at capacity; mitigations calling for a study on
18 capacity is not a mitigation; p. 159 - inflow and infill improvements not made; "C" Street
19 pumping station exceeds its capacity during wet weather; when will improvements to
20 current sewer plant be made? calculations were made on low- density development - but
21 EIR references project as a high- density development; wildlife studies have not been done;
22 carriage units are excluded from EIR guidelines - cumulative effects not covered - part of
23 Design Guidelines but not part of EIR; development potential equals additional 240 units;
24 Cleveland Lane /Ave and Chapman Lane traffic impacts not referenced in DEIR; traffic
25 assumptions (appendix D), base volume - not much in the EIR regarding traffic on D
26 Street, where cars are going; water pumping capacities; no storm water information
27 available yet on this project; water agency -wide - not even sure of our current water
28 supplies; water supply (says EIR) should be in place before this development; many
29 mitigations conflict with other mitigations; CEQA required conclusions - project would be
30 precedent- setting; early conclusion to Williamson Act; EIR only looks at immediate area;
31 conflicting mitigations - studies are not mitigations; no full disclosure; water problems, not
32 looking at overall impacts; not ready for prime -time; community -wide issues (p. 150)
33 needs/exceeds GP buildout; p. 150 -152- carriage units impacts; p. 156 - parks with turf,
34 high eater usage; some mitigations are suggestions to City not applied to project;
35 mitigations that conflict with one another are screening vs. traffic safety, drought- tolerant
36 vs. turf (playing fields), drainage (street vs. other drain off); CEQA required assessment
37 growth inducement; Williamson Act cancellation; overlooking environmental impacts city-
38 wide (sewer, water, traffic, water quality); full disclosure required by CEQA.
39 Robert Maser 2340 Western: expressed concerns regarding traffic, fire, police response -
40 refer to 55 page response prepared by Gail Philips for "Neighbors For A Better Petaluma ":
41 traffic does not mathematically agree at many locations; no accuracy in traffic counts;
42 traffic problem also extends to areas not in immediate area (Chapman, Lohrman, Bodega);
43 pedestrian and bicycle traffic safety; AM traffic frenzy at intersections; Windsor at "D"
44 unsafe (40 -60 mph speeds on "D "); police and fire response 9+ minutes; 2,652 engine
45 response calls, 2,340 medical calls; sprinklers do not address medical impacts; police
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/28/97
1 patrol is infrequent and police staff inadequate to provide service to this project;
2 commercial site (uses, etc.) significant impacts - would need to draw from larger base,
3 therefore will impact downtown and Bodega; construction of Windsor Drive has
4 significantly disrupted 'lives in area; cumulative impacts; fire response to this site is already
5 beyond acceptable levels; medical responses are 88% of current response by
6 fire/paramedics; there are on/off switches on fire sprinkling systems and many are switched
7 off - how will we pay for extra police/fire protection; Neighbors for Better Petaluma
8 points out many flaws; EIR very inadequate; developer can go against General Plan;
9 neighborhood has invested in quality of life; responsible for stewardship of quality of life;
10 professionals have used terms that mislead the public for profit; people here are showing
11 opposition; stewardship of land belongs to the people; not willing to take the risk.
12 George Spragens submitted comments in writing; focused on defects of EIR, procedural
13 omissions, definition of project under CEQA is different in some ways than would
14 normally be thought of; cancellation of Williamson Act - lead agency determines that this
15 would be a project of state -wide significance due to size of project; policy consistency
16 finding incorrect - greater than 100 acres; statewide, regional or area -wide significance -
17 noticed public hearing with very specific findings; public taking of a granted open space
18 district - must find standard of public need; draft EIR talks about 2 findings needed to be
19 made - 1) will adjacent properties be taken out of agricultural usage (which parcels on
20 Western are still agricultural); and 2) is there proximate non - contracted land that would be
21 put into same use? Lots in Victoria Phase 3 are ready to be built; no overriding need for
22 more vacant lots; immediately east are large vacant parcels which may be more
23 appropriate for development before Varnhagen; Williamson Act contract very important;
24 DEIR plays this down, stating that this is not prime ag. land; non - agricultural use of this
25 property not reason to cancel Williamson Act contract; if no action taken by City of
26 Petaluma, County could be approached for development; 1986 road through parcel was
27 stated not to be growth inducing; now going back on findings; loose ends from 1986 -
28 City wrote to Director of Conservation regarding roadway - not about pump lift station,
29 other utilities; has City accepted public improvements? City of Petaluma should be trying
30 to maintain the Williamson Act contract - application should not have been accepted by
31 City, why not deny submission ?; should be through County; other agencies should have
32 been consulted per CEQA guidelines before decision to prepare DEIR; DEIR needs to list
33 which agencies contacted; back up and start over if this is to be a defensible EIR.
34 Debbie Friedenberg project size, scope and nature not consistent with City and General
35 Plan; this project not right for this area; Petaluma's General Plan is great - should be
36 adhered to - maximum density is in 60 range — sloping property would be lower; proposal
37 is 4+ times the General Plan allowable, 240 units to be built on 37 acres; this would
38 encourage speculation by developers; this is a signal that profound changes could be
39 obtained; would encourage commercial from downtown and keep local residents away as
40 well; significant impacts: water runoff, wastewater, noise/visual impacts, service response,
41 school overcrowding; city infrastructure needs to be improved before this project can be
42 discussed; precedent - setting changes to General Plan - do not change General Plan -
43 inconsistent /incompatible; Hillside Village is only consistent when General Plan is
44 amended (p. 63).
4
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/28/97
1 Gary Ramatici Thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak; Neighbors for a
2 Better Petaluma dramatically impacted by this project; rural quality of life would be
3 destroyed; proposal is a metaphor for development out of control; against changing
4 General Plan/Williamson Act; assault on established way of life for thousands of Petaluma
5 residents; DEIR is very inadequate; assault on intelligence of everyone; ill- conceived
6 project; dramatic, irreversible impact if this project built; we're at a crossroads - one path
7 destroys, one preserves way of life - choose moraVjust path.
8 Willie.Evans - 2009 Western Avenue: bought property in 1964; most affected property by
9 this project; his property has no problems now - would have many problems with this
10 project as mitigations not adequate; p. 105 -107 plot doesn't show houses - usual analysis
11 shows houses; rear of his house faces hill of proposal (he presented his visual corridor
12 exhibit) - pleasant views, watching sunrise, moderate traffic noise now would greatly
13 increase; no new construction in this area since 1964; this project would destroy well-
14 established neighborhood; short and long -term negative effects on community;
15 ridgeline /skyline will be destroyed; project will encourage trespassing by Jr. High and High
16 School students on private property; hedge row of trees (p. 313) will totally block off his
17 skyline - defensible resource.
18 Brad Morris 763 Chapman Lane: is a general contractor/builder who lives in this area; in
19 Victoria, great deal of work on hills lately, for construction vehicles, quickest routes to
20 site are Cleveland and Chapman; they have had a "quick fix" because of road surface
21 problems; trucks will rip roads apart; roads will become unsafe; Wilson School students
22 will add more traffic on county roads; emergency response time will endanger lives in this
23 subdivision; no studies on impact to Cleveland and Chapman.
24 Linda Noren 8 Hill Drive: neighborhood very impressive and knowledgeable; traffic
25 already impacted in the area of Hill Drive; 3 cars have crashed into home of elderly
26 homeowner at corner of IIiII/Westem; potential for hazards to pedestrians; road is banked
27 at wrong angle, already a big problem with numerous cars into poles; dangerous curve
28 already; bad idea for development here - supports all other comments.
29 Julia Cort 830 D Street: Traffic on D Street already bad; drainage on D Street already a
30 problem (pond in back yard) and will increase; high water table in vicinity of "D" Street; D
31 Street will become a thoroughfare - it's already a tourist attraction.
32 Ray Petersen 636 Gossage: wants to save way of life as a farmer in Petaluma; mitigation
33 issues are way too general in DEIR; concerns with traffic circulation and impacts to
34 Chapman Lane; no public transportation to this property; fire/police response time is
35 inadequate; Wilson School would require 4 new classrooms - who will pay for these? no
36 discussion in DEIR about Petaluma Watershed Plan; water will be put into Marin Creek
37 and channeled; developer needs to provide for downstream water runoff, Skillman Lane
38 flood&now; additional runoff will cause earlier flooding in all areas including Leisure Lake
39 and Payran areas; retention ponds may be an option; first major encroachment by City into
40 Marin Creek; don't certify the EK no pedestrian sidewalks; left turn lane onto Chapman
41 will make matters worse; fire impacts -need new firehouse.
42 Janet Morris 763 Chapman Lane: is an employee of Wilson School; every classroom
43 space already being used, including teachers' workrooms, etc. to achieve 1/20 ratio for K-
44 3; impacts to school would be huge; huge impact to Cleveland/Chapman Lanes; can't be
45 left out of the DEIR.
5
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/28/97
1
2 Public hearing was closed.
3
4 Commissioner Thompson believes comments made by Mr. Spragens regarding
5 Williamson Act need to be clarified before we can go on; questions about letter to Dept.
6 of Conservation.
7 Commissioner Maguire had questions on Victoria off -site improvements.
8 Commissioner Healy is this an exercise in futility? does staff have more information?
9 Commissioner Bennett Is Williamson Act properly handled in DEIR; should it be
10 resolved prior to discussion?
11 Vin Smith more information can be supplied by staff; the Commission does not need to
12 suspend further DEIR discussions.
13 Commissioner Ma ire What is City's policy on distance City goes to analyze
14 downstream runoff impacts?
15 Pamela Tuft DEIR needs to address to acceptable level; City has no written policy;
16 anticipated acre feet of runoff could be assumed based on project development
17 information and used for analysis purposes.
18 Commissioner Thompson letter from Dept. of Conservation - answers to questions
19 (1986); answer questions regarding Victoria pumping station.
20 Commissioner Broad Chapter 3: disappointed that no presentation tonight by project
21 proponents; guidelines encourage second units/live -work units; not clear if this would
22 require use permit; EIR should include impacts of these units; impact of living areas above
23 the market should be included; compatibility needs to be determined; street pattern needs
24 more detail; can't fully assess impacts without lotting patterns, height limits; rezoning to
25 PCD - provide Planning Commission with sufficient information and detail.
26 Commissioner Healy Chapter 4. 1, (Page 63, Finding 5) Williamson Act questions -
27 Definition of proximate in the DEIR may be too narrow; EIR not clear on this aspect,
28 needs legal input with respect to definition of proximate.
29 Commissioner Maguire agrees with Commissioner Healy; also inconsistency with
30 changing General Plan; not sound reasoning to say project is consistent with General Plan
31 once you change the land use designation.
32 Commissioner Bennett Chapter 4: Public policy, p. 63 in EIR; would like staff response
33 on history of Williamson Act - any change since Prop. 13? Wilson School impacts
34 understated and mitigations not adequate; boundary amendment not a reasonable
35 mitigation, needs much harder look; impacts to Cleveland and Chapman Lane and access
36 to Bodega and Wilson School; soils stability issue needs additional assessment.
37 Commissioner Thompson EastmanBodega needs to be included in traffic analysis - truck
38 traffic; Petaluma Watershed Plan needs to be included; will directly cause more flooding
39 problems; Flooding of Skilman area is serious issue! Hill Drive/Western is a major safety
40 problem and needs mitigation.
41 Commissioner Broad Public policy regarding General Plan - many policies need to be
42 further looked at and discussed; p. 30, Policy 7 - Urban Limit Line - limited density as
43 shown on General Plan map - gradual and deliberate lessening (is this project consistent ?);
44 Prog. 1.1: Growth Management should be examined for consistency with Urban Limit
45 Line; page 33, policy 21: not guarantee of maximum development; page 34, policy 28:
6
Plannin Commission Minutes - 10/28/97
i support residential, adequate city facilities - EIR mentions "future studies" - not
2 acceptable, p. 62, schools: school site analysis ?; adequate public utilities/services need to
3 be discussed/examined; also adequacy of school district.
4 Chairman Feibusch has real concerns regarding open space issue, west side of Windsor -
5 mitigations, stability, fire protection: more clarification needed.
6 Commissioner Broad 4.2 Land Use: mitigation measure LU1 discusses some lots should
7 be eliminated or reconfigured; Planning Commission needs a more concrete development
8 plan; what is actually happening on site, where are the lots; where is "native vegetation"
9 proposed?
10 Chairman Feibusch 4.3 Population, Employment and Housing: has concerns regarding
11 carriage unit impacts - must be tied into EIR analysis.
12 Commissioner Thompson has tremendous concerns about originally proposed 240 units.
13 Commissioner Vieler how can carriage houses not even appear in the EIR? how did they
14 escape analysis? create demands on services, roads, etc.
15 Commissioner Healy view from Chileno Valley Road - natural buffer plantings; need to
16 identify property ownership?
17 Commissioner Maguire light and glare looked at from all directions?
18 Commissioner Broad more visual simulation needed; cannot access heights on the visual
19 simulations; what was criteria used to create simulations; accessory structures need to be
20 shown, p. 76 DEIR: include projects that are exempt from Growth Management System.
21 Commissioner Healy traffic /circulation: confused regarding left turn lane onto Chapman;
22 sidewalks on Western Avenue; discuss property acquisition issues in FEIR; no valid
23 reason to assume daycare facility /private school will not generate any traffic on Western;
24 should, be rethought in EIR; 4.4 Visual & Design Issues: Chileno Valley Road - natural
25 buffer plantings (where is buffer, on private property? if private, with owner permission ?)
26 Commissioner Maguire additional storm water run -off will exacerbate other problems;
27 need to provide drainage improvement and drainage information; work with Sonoma
28 County? not realistic to assume City or county do it; light and glare - what about impacts
29 in other directions ?; property vegetation buffer - should not impede sight distance.
30 Commissioner Bennett circulation over Bodega - error not to assume
31 Chapman/Cleveland over to and including Bodega Ave. will be impacted.
32 Commissioner Broad ridgeline impact needs to be addressed; spacing between units;
33 can't assess height of buildings; what heights were used, where shown? what about
34 carriage houses (setbacks to property lines ?) accessory structures must be included in
35 visual analysis (p: 117).
36 Commissioner Vieler address inaccuracies raised by Mr. Maser in traffic analysis.
37 Commissioner Healy unusually high and low water pressure - what is normally
38 acceptable range; deed restrictions not an acceptable mitigation; mitigation regarding
39 emergency equipment not acceptable; police need to comment on convenience store
40 selling alcohol at this site; soccer /softball proposed on these designated park sites -
41 questions regarding grading/cutting/filling; class size (new legislation) puts all 3 schools in
42 area at or above capacity; contact policy makers of both school districts; could school
43 room construction be ready in time for new students? questions methodology of
44 predicting number of students; CIR 1- confusing - how does left turn lane on Westem
7
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/28/97
1 work with intersection of Cleveland; CIR -9 - Discuss acquisition issues, impacts,
2 condemnation.
3 Commissioner Maguire WAT -lab and c: water conservation measures should be placed
4 on developer, not county /city; mitigations regarding water pressure inadequate; SEW -1"
5 sewer system capacity - a study is not a mitigation; POL -1: police needs to be clarified -
6 too vague; FIRE -1 &2: fire - address 4 minute response time; requiring wider streets voids
7 the pedestrian orientation of project, adds to drainage, etc.; interrelationship of mitigations
8 - can affect all aspects and impacts of project.
9 Chairman Feibusch mitigation to require more safety equipment is not a mitigation to the
10 site being beyond the 4 minute response time for fire/medical.
11 Commissioner Bennett p. 121 - access from cross street (Cleveland, Chapman and
12 Eastman).
13 Commissioner Vieler why did City turn down a Victoria pump station?
14 Vin Smith pump station is for Phase 3 (unbuilt portion); will get answers.
15 Commissioner Thompson Traffic, pick -up at Petaluma Jr. High School
16 (Bantam/Western) - bend in road is dangerous - could it be removed? Need definite
17 improvement, not a stop sign.
18 Commissioner Vieler emergency response time concerns.
19 Commissioner Broad WAT -2: water booster station calculations should be determined by
20 an'objective party, not project proponent; SEW -1: pumping station feasibility needs to be
21 defined; SEW -2: questions regarding expanded collection facility (infrastructure of pipes
22 to facility) - more information necessary; reservations regarding 2.68 persons expected as
23 average household size; it may be higher for Petaluma so we should use a different (larger)
24 number; concurs with inadequacy of discussions regarding school capacities; population of
25 elementary school age children may be too low, the 0.4 generation rate used is too low.
26 Commissioner Healy concerns regarding carriage unit effects on schools; 4.6
27 Infrastructure: Water #4 - low water pressure, 32 -95 psi - what is normal acceptable
28 range? Deed restrictions are not acceptable mitigations. Fire #2 - defibrillator - what use?
29 Training - how does this directly address impacts: p. 168 -170: market off -sale liquor (7 -.
30 11 ?); police concern with potential off -sale? 4.6 -4.7: playing fields? sloped area, 42'
31 elevation change? what will grading do to drainage? Schools - class size reduction
32 impacts: K -4 now 1/20 ratio - will reduce carrying capacity of the school. Locals know all
33 3 elementary schools are at capacity; school board not looking at district amendments; is
34 Wilmar District willing to transfer--; is Petaluma School District willing to take them? Not
35 adequate assessment of 1998 impacts (timing of improvements); domino effect on west
36 side of town to existing residences (more neighborhoods would be affected); suggest
37 exploring the additional potential to bus or send children to schools that do have capacity
38 (outside the enrollment boundaries); pages 153 -84: 96 additional elementary (K -6); 38
39 additional (7 -12) students - question methodology and ultimate impact; analysis should
40 consider carriage units impact.
41 Commissioner Vieler why no more discussion of public transit service to site in EIR or
42 by project proponent?
43 Commissioner Broad is there a preliminary grading plan? Need more information on
44 grading; provide more information/specifics; p. 197: without a grading plan, can't make
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/28/97
1 assumption that grading will balance: typical grading not applicable to this type of site;
2 <5% slope - puzzling because this may not be minimal grading.
3 Commissioner Bennett needs "ironclad" reassurance on grading - mitigation should be
4 stronger (p. 200 -GE02) - thought Victoria would be okay when it was approved.
5 Commissioner Maguire agrees more grading mitigations need to be discussed; GE02 not
6 a mitigation; GE03 refers back to 2; HYDRO -la: concerns regarding adequacy of
7 mitigations suggested regarding impervious surfaces; HYDRO -lc: more information on
8 grading; and additional potential erosion impacts; no discussion on downstream inflow and
9 infiltration; HYDRO -le: more information on storm drainage mitigation; HYDRO -3c: is
10 aggressive street sweeping enforceable? WAT #1 - is already required- not a mitigation;
11 "low flow" already required; WAT -1c: responsibility should be developers, not City;
12 explore mandatory reuse of water for irrigation; address issues of steelhead listing
13 reduction of water available from Russian River; WAT4 - not specific; SEW 1 - who's
14 responsible, what is mitigation; SEW -2: what about carriage units? "D" collection basin -
15 "study not acceptable - what about "treatment "? Police 1 - impact is inadequate; FIRE 1,
16 2 - fire sprinklers do not address 4 minute response - is a new station needed? PARK1 -
17 funding mechanism - not a mitigation; Schools -1: before construction.
18 Commissioner Vieler storm runoff - why is EIR using 25 year instead of 100 year flood
19 information? Runoff Western to Chapman - look at it. (4.8 Hydrology, Drainage, Water
20 Quality,)
21 Commissioner Mare regarding loss of habitat - not mitigated; wetland habitat
22 replacement? What are specific measures - explain. BIO -lA - be specific. BIO -2 -
23 wildlife corridor - where? BIO -3, 4 - raptor nests and specific species need to be defined,
24 qualified and mitigated.
25 Commissioner Vieler strengthen mitigation regarding preventing wildlife destruction;
26 Sewer 2: mitigation will bring project to halt until "D" Street studied and potential
27 improvements installed; why Victoria pump station not accepted? emergency response
28 time: over 4 minutes too late, not adequate. BIO -2 - strengthened - signage - other
29 measures?
30 Commissioner Broad BIO -3 - Avoidance of raptor nests and avoidance of wet weather
31 before "October may conflict, strengthen mitigation.
32 Commissioner Bennett CULT -3 - much stronger regarding investigative measures for
33 archeological findings - more specific - surface check not adequate; School -1 not
34 adequate.
35 Chairman Feibusch Fire 2 - not a mitigation; doesn't change response time.
36 Commissioner Maguire agrees with Bennett - need to be more specific (CUL -2); CUL -3
37 - retain archaeologist - how enforced?
38 Commissioner Healv Noise -l: mitigations regarding acoustical analysis should also
39 consider existing residences on 115' of Western Avenue; how to mitigate?
46 Commissioner Broad page 263 - why unable to determine soundproofing of Victoria
41 Subdivision station - define soundproofing; should be plans on file; p. 264 - impact of
42 construction trucks on Western to Petaluma Boulevard - address this in traffic and/or
43 safety what is impact ?; downtown Petaluma needs to be discussed; WAT2 - project
44 booster capacity - project sponsor providing information? should be less connected to
45 developer, more objective calculation - if not, who reviews for accuracy? SEW 1 (p. 167)
9
Planning Commission Minutes 10/28/97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
- "not feasible ", needs to be defined (engineering or economic ?) SEW -2 - who does study,
who pays, who reviews? School capacity understated, based on number of bedrooms;
market study west side - 2.68 res/units too low? agrees with concerns on school district
inadequacy and mitigations; population assumption - Wilmar doesn't have information?
look at Westridge Knolls - needs additional effort, student yield.
Commissioner Vieler points regarding Mr. Spragens - wants to know legal precedence
regarding interpretation of Williamson Act. (Supreme Court rulings ?)
Chairman Feibusch Thanked neighborhood.
Commissioner Maguire summarized EIR review process.
Motion was made by Commissioner Maguire and seconded by Commissioner Broad to
move DEIR to the City Council for consideration, with all comments made tonight.
Commissioner Bennett: Aye
Commissioner Broad: Aye
Chairman Feibusch: Aye
Commissioner Healy: Aye
Commissioner Maguire: Aye
Commissioner Thompson: Aye
Commissioner Vieler: Aye
Meeting was adjourned at 10:58 pm.
min 1028 / plan89
10